Countermeasure system are deployed onboard tanks and other armored fighting vehicles to provide protection from projectiles, such as guided and unguided anti-tank missiles. In a general sense, countermeasure systems can be divided into two broad categories: passive countermeasure systems and active countermeasure systems (also commonly referred to as “Active Protection Systems” or “APSs”). Passive countermeasure systems attempt to disable, or least diffuse, incoming projectiles upon impact. As one well-known example of a passive countermeasure system, slat armor provides a rigid grid around an armored fighting vehicle, which may effectively crush an incoming projectile, disable the fusing mechanism thereof, or otherwise prevent optimal detonation from occurring. Additional examples of passive countermeasure systems include composite armor, reactive armor, and airbag-based countermeasure systems, such as the Tactical Rocket Propelled Grenade (“RPG”) Airbag Protection System recently introduced by Textron Defense Systems.
In contrast to passive countermeasure systems, Active Protection Systems are designed to destroy or otherwise disable incoming projectiles prior to vehicle-projectile impact. Well-known examples of Active Protection Systems include the Soviet Drozd System, the Israeli Trophy System, and the Russian Arena System. By definition, Active Protection Systems provide a major advantage over passive countermeasure systems; i.e., when successful, an APS destroys or otherwise disables an incoming projectile at a distance from the armored fighting vehicle thereby minimizing the likelihood of damage to the vehicle and its crew. Several limitations have, however, deterred the widespread adoption of conventional Active Protection Systems. First, many conventional Active Protection Systems are undesirably costly to manufacture, deploy, and service. Second, conventional Active Protection Systems, such as the Russian Arena System, are often considerably bulky and heavy. Third, as are many passive countermeasure systems, Active Protection Systems are often unreliable at defeating multiple threats or tandem threats, such as Rocket Propelled Grenades carrying tandem-charge high explosive anti-tank warheads (e.g., RPG-27 and RPG-29). Fourth, many Active Protection Systems are capable of reliably defeating incoming projectiles only within a relatively limited spatial envelope and, consequently, do not provide full hemispherical threat protection. For example, the bulky, conical fragmentation warhead employed by the Soviet Drozd system is capable of reliably defeating threats only between elevations of approximately −6-20 degrees and approximately 40-60 degrees along the vertical and horizontal planes, respectively. Finally, as an especially significant limitation in modern combat scenarios, conventional Active Protection Systems are typically ineffective at defeating RPGs launched in close proximity to the APS-equipped armored fighting vehicle.
There thus exists an ongoing need to provide embodiments of a countermeasure system that overcomes many, if not all, of the above-described limitations. In particular, it would be desirable to provide embodiments of an active countermeasure system that is reliable, scalable, compact, relatively lightweight, modular, and relatively inexpensive to manufacture and deploy onboard armored fighting vehicles. It would also be desirable for embodiments of such a countermeasure system to provide full hemispherical protection against incoming threats, including multiple threats, tandem threats, and RPGs launched in close proximity to the host vehicle. Finally, it would also be desirable to provide embodiments of method for equipping a vehicle, such as an armored fighting vehicle, with such a countermeasure system. Other desirable features and characteristics of the present invention will become apparent from the subsequent Detailed Description and the appended Claims, taken in conjunction with the accompanying Drawings and this Background.